The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Monday, 24 July 2017

Saint Jeremy's halo looses its glow over student debt

Various people - of many political persuasions - have accused Jeremy Corbyn of “misleading students” over student debt and fees. Others have also said that Corbyn “indicated” - during the election campaign – that he'd wipe out the sums owed by students. 

It seems, then, that Corbyn is a “typical politician” after all.

That means that of course Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum and the Labour Party were using students as “election fodder”. (Except that most middle-class students want to be fodder for radical socialism.) Indeed Corbyn has also focused much of his attention on all those middle-class Trotskyists and communists who flocked to the Labour Party (like flies to shit) once he became Chairman of the Labour Party.

So, yes, Corbyn was never explicit about student debt. Politicians are rarely explicit about anything. Again, that's to be expected – except in the case of a saint.

Apart from what Corbyn actually did and didn't say, the Labour Party did promise (i.e., before the election) to end tuition fees. That would have cost £7.5 billion a year.

Labour also promised to restore maintenance grants. That will mean that if Labour had been elected, it would have spent an extra £11.2 billion on higher education... or would it?


In an interview with the NME, Jeremy Corbyn said that he didn't see why those students who have the “historical misfortune” of large fees should be “burdened excessively” when compared to other people.

That's fairly vague. Basically, it can be taken as an explicit promise and not as an explicit promise. Those that wanted it to be an explicit promise (i.e., students) took it as an explicit promise. Most sceptics doubted the promise from the very beginning.

Thus it's not a big surprise that Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC's Andrew Marr that his comments weren't a “commitment” to erase student debt. After all, he said that before the election. And now Corbyn is backtracking (at least a little) after the election. That is, students have already done the business – they voted for Corbyn's radical socialism.

Jeremy Corbyn retrospectively tells is – in reference to his promises to students - that the Labour Party “had written the manifesto in a short space of time because there was a surprise election”. Does he also apply the logic of off-the-cuff manifestos to all the other parties, including the Conservative Party?

Some of Corbyn's other post hoc statements sound a little strange... and that's putting it mildly. For example, Corbyn also says that he “did not make a commitment we would write it off because I couldn’t at that stage”. What does that mean? He seems to be making the point that because Labour wasn't in power before the election (never?); then, because of that fact, he didn't have the power (at that time) to erase student debt. What? Of course he didn't! Yet he was campaigning to have that power. He wasn't promising jam sandwiches tomorrow as Shadow Prime Minister. He was promising jam sandwiches tomorrow if he were elected.

Corbyn also said that the Labour Party was “unaware of the size of it [the “debt burden] at the time”. Now that just sounds like plain bullshit. One, he should have been aware. Two, if he was aware, then Corbyn is misleading the public again.


It was very easy for Saint Jeremy to be a saint when he wasn't a political leader. Very easy. It's also very easy to be “principled” (as his disciples put it) when you don't have much political power. Sure, Corbyn is principled in the rather pathetic sense that he believes the same thing now (more or less) as he believed when he converted to socialism when he was 16 (in 1964). Is that supposed to be a good thing – believing at 68 what you believed at 16?

Corbyn shows us that he's a liar and misLeader just like most other politicians; and, indeed, many ordinary mortals. That's not the problem. The problem is the way Corbyn's supporters portray him as some kind of secular saint. Yet he's lied about his support for the IRA even before this student baloney. Again, it's not the lying: it's the image Corbynites have created around Saint Jeremy. A self-serving and obviously duplicitous image manufactured about a man who has praised Hamas and Hezbollah, Trotsky, the Soviet Union, Lenin and Castro. 

Saint Jeremy is a very strange saint.

No comments:

Post a Comment